Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008, is a date that will live in fame (the opposite of infamy) forever. If the election of our first African-American president didn’t stir you, if it didn’t leave you teary-eyed and proud of your country, there’s something wrong with you.

But will the election also mark a turning point in the actual substance of policy? Can Barack Obama really usher in a new era of progressive policies? Yes, he can.

Right now, many commentators are urging Mr. Obama to think small. Some make the case on political grounds: America, they say, is still a conservative country, and voters will punish Democrats if they move to the left. Others say that the financial and economic crisis leaves no room for action on, say, health care reform.

Let’s hope that Mr. Obama has the good sense to ignore this advice.

About the political argument: Anyone who doubts that we’ve had a major political realignment should look at what’s happened to Congress. After the 2004 election, there were many declarations that we’d entered a long-term, perhaps permanent era of Republican dominance. Since then, Democrats have won back-to-back victories, picking up at least 12 Senate seats and more than 50 House seats. They now have bigger majorities in both houses than the G.O.P. ever achieved in its 12-year reign.

Bear in mind, also, that this year’s presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies — and the progressive philosophy won.

Maybe the best way to highlight the importance of that fact is to contrast this year’s campaign with what happened four years ago. In 2004, President Bush concealed his real agenda. He basically ran as the nation’s defender against gay married terrorists, leaving even his supporters nonplussed when he announced, soon after the election was over, that his first priority was Social Security privatization. That wasn’t what people thought they had been voting for, and the privatization campaign quickly devolved from juggernaut to farce.

This year, however, Mr. Obama ran on a platform of guaranteed health care and tax breaks for the middle class, paid for with higher taxes on the affluent. John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a “redistributor,” but America voted for him anyway. That’s a real mandate.

What about the argument that the economic crisis will make a progressive agenda unaffordable?

Well, there’s no question that fighting the crisis will cost a lot of money. Rescuing the financial system will probably require large outlays beyond the funds already disbursed. And on top of that, we badly need a program of increased government spending to support output and employment. Could next year’s federal budget deficit reach $1 trillion? Yes.

But standard textbook economics says that it’s O.K., in fact appropriate, to run temporary deficits in the face of a depressed economy. Meanwhile, one or two years of red ink, while it would add modestly to future federal interest expenses, shouldn’t stand in the way of a health care plan that, even if quickly enacted into law, probably wouldn’t take effect until 2011.

Beyond that, the response to the economic crisis is, in itself, a chance to advance the progressive agenda.

Now, the Obama administration shouldn’t emulate the Bush administration’s habit of turning anything and everything into an argument for its preferred policies. (Recession? The economy needs help — let’s cut taxes on rich people! Recovery? Tax cuts for rich people work — let’s do some more!)

But it would be fair for the new administration to point out how conservative ideology, the belief that greed is always good, helped create this crisis. What F.D.R. said in his second inaugural address — “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics” — has never rung truer.

And right now happens to be one of those times when the converse is also true, and good morals are good economics. Helping the neediest in a time of crisis, through expanded health and unemployment benefits, is the morally right thing to do; it’s also a far more effective form of economic stimulus than cutting the capital gains tax. Providing aid to beleaguered state and local governments, so that they can sustain essential public services, is important for those who depend on those services; it’s also a way to avoid job losses and limit the depth of the economy’s slump.

So a serious progressive agenda — call it a new New Deal — isn’t just economically possible, it’s exactly what the economy needs.

The bottom line, then, is that Barack Obama shouldn’t listen to the people trying to scare him into being a do-nothing president. He has the political mandate; he has good economics on his side. You might say that the only thing he has to fear is fear itself.

About the political argument: Anyone who doubts that we’ve had a major political realignment should look at what’s happened to Congress. After the 2004 election, there were many declarations that we’d entered a long-term, perhaps permanent era of Republican dominance. Since then, Democrats have won back-to-back victories, picking up at least 12 Senate seats and more than 50 House seats. They now have bigger majorities in both houses than the G.O.P. ever achieved in its 12-year reign.

Bear in mind, also, that this year’s presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies — and the progressive philosophy won.

Maybe the best way to highlight the importance of that fact is to contrast this year’s campaign with what happened four years ago. In 2004, President Bush concealed his real agenda. He basically ran as the nation’s defender against gay married terrorists, leaving even his supporters nonplussed when he announced, soon after the election was over, that his first priority was Social Security privatization. That wasn’t what people thought they had been voting for, and the privatization campaign quickly devolved from juggernaut to farce.

This year, however, Mr. Obama ran on a platform of guaranteed health care and tax breaks for the middle class, paid for with higher taxes on the affluent. John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a “redistributor,” but America voted for him anyway. That’s a real mandate.

exactly!

Quote

What about the argument that the economic crisis will make a progressive agenda unaffordable?

Well, there’s no question that fighting the crisis will cost a lot of money. Rescuing the financial system will probably require large outlays beyond the funds already disbursed. And on top of that, we badly need a program of increased government spending to support output and employment. Could next year’s federal budget deficit reach $1 trillion? Yes.

But standard textbook economics says that it’s O.K., in fact appropriate, to run temporary deficits in the face of a depressed economy. Meanwhile, one or two years of red ink, while it would add modestly to future federal interest expenses, shouldn’t stand in the way of a health care plan that, even if quickly enacted into law, probably wouldn’t take effect until 2011.

Beyond that, the response to the economic crisis is, in itself, a chance to advance the progressive agenda.

Right on!

Quote

But it would be fair for the new administration to point out how conservative ideology, the belief that greed is always good, helped create this crisis. What F.D.R. said in his second inaugural address — “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics” — has never rung truer.And right now happens to be one of those times when the converse is also true, and good morals are good economics. Helping the neediest in a time of crisis, through expanded health and unemployment benefits, is the morally right thing to do; it’s also a far more effective form of economic stimulus than cutting the capital gains tax. Providing aid to beleaguered state and local governments, so that they can sustain essential public services, is important for those who depend on those services; it’s also a way to avoid job losses and limit the depth of the economy’s slump.

So a serious progressive agenda — call it a new New Deal — isn’t just economically possible, it’s exactly what the economy needs.The bottom line, then, is that Barack Obama shouldn’t listen to the people trying to scare him into being a do-nothing president. He has the political mandate; he has good economics on his side. You might say that the only thing he has to fear is fear itself.

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Logged

I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word - -Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King

I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word - -Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King

Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008, is a date that will live in fame (the opposite of infamy) forever. If the election of our first African-American president didn’t stir you, if it didn’t leave you teary-eyed and proud of your country, there’s something wrong with you.

But will the election also mark a turning point in the actual substance of policy? Can Barack Obama really usher in a new era of progressive policies? Yes, he can.

Right now, many commentators are urging Mr. Obama to think small. Some make the case on political grounds: America, they say, is still a conservative country, and voters will punish Democrats if they move to the left. Others say that the financial and economic crisis leaves no room for action on, say, health care reform.

Let’s hope that Mr. Obama has the good sense to ignore this advice.

About the political argument: Anyone who doubts that we’ve had a major political realignment should look at what’s happened to Congress. After the 2004 election, there were many declarations that we’d entered a long-term, perhaps permanent era of Republican dominance. Since then, Democrats have won back-to-back victories, picking up at least 12 Senate seats and more than 50 House seats. They now have bigger majorities in both houses than the G.O.P. ever achieved in its 12-year reign.

Bear in mind, also, that this year’s presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies — and the progressive philosophy won.

Solid! This fact is almost as important as the significance of Obama's presidency itself.

Logged

"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."Charles H. Houston

Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008, is a date that will live in fame (the opposite of infamy) forever. If the election of our first African-American president didn’t stir you, if it didn’t leave you teary-eyed and proud of your country, there’s something wrong with you.

But will the election also mark a turning point in the actual substance of policy? Can Barack Obama really usher in a new era of progressive policies? Yes, he can.

Right now, many commentators are urging Mr. Obama to think small. Some make the case on political grounds: America, they say, is still a conservative country, and voters will punish Democrats if they move to the left. Others say that the financial and economic crisis leaves no room for action on, say, health care reform.

Let’s hope that Mr. Obama has the good sense to ignore this advice.

About the political argument: Anyone who doubts that we’ve had a major political realignment should look at what’s happened to Congress. After the 2004 election, there were many declarations that we’d entered a long-term, perhaps permanent era of Republican dominance. Since then, Democrats have won back-to-back victories, picking up at least 12 Senate seats and more than 50 House seats. They now have bigger majorities in both houses than the G.O.P. ever achieved in its 12-year reign.

Bear in mind, also, that this year’s presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies — and the progressive philosophy won.Maybe the best way to highlight the importance of that fact is to contrast this year’s campaign with what happened four years ago. In 2004, President Bush concealed his real agenda. He basically ran as the nation’s defender against gay married terrorists, leaving even his supporters nonplussed when he announced, soon after the election was over, that his first priority was Social Security privatization. That wasn’t what people thought they had been voting for, and the privatization campaign quickly devolved from juggernaut to farce.

This year, however, Mr. Obama ran on a platform of guaranteed health care and tax breaks for the middle class, paid for with higher taxes on the affluent. John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a “redistributor,” but America voted for him anyway. That’s a real mandate.

What about the argument that the economic crisis will make a progressive agenda unaffordable?

Well, there’s no question that fighting the crisis will cost a lot of money. Rescuing the financial system will probably require large outlays beyond the funds already disbursed. And on top of that, we badly need a program of increased government spending to support output and employment. Could next year’s federal budget deficit reach $1 trillion? Yes.

But standard textbook economics says that it’s O.K., in fact appropriate, to run temporary deficits in the face of a depressed economy. Meanwhile, one or two years of red ink, while it would add modestly to future federal interest expenses, shouldn’t stand in the way of a health care plan that, even if quickly enacted into law, probably wouldn’t take effect until 2011.

Beyond that, the response to the economic crisis is, in itself, a chance to advance the progressive agenda.

Now, the Obama administration shouldn’t emulate the Bush administration’s habit of turning anything and everything into an argument for its preferred policies. (Recession? The economy needs help — let’s cut taxes on rich people! Recovery? Tax cuts for rich people work — let’s do some more!)

But it would be fair for the new administration to point out how conservative ideology, the belief that greed is always good, helped create this crisis. What F.D.R. said in his second inaugural address — “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics” — has never rung truer.

And right now happens to be one of those times when the converse is also true, and good morals are good economics. Helping the neediest in a time of crisis, through expanded health and unemployment benefits, is the morally right thing to do; it’s also a far more effective form of economic stimulus than cutting the capital gains tax. Providing aid to beleaguered state and local governments, so that they can sustain essential public services, is important for those who depend on those services; it’s also a way to avoid job losses and limit the depth of the economy’s slump.

So a serious progressive agenda — call it a new New Deal — isn’t just economically possible, it’s exactly what the economy needs.

The bottom line, then, is that Barack Obama shouldn’t listen to the people trying to scare him into being a do-nothing president. He has the political mandate; he has good economics on his side. You might say that the only thing he has to fear is fear itself.

muhuhahahahahaha...keep thinking that way...

this overly biased writer is flat out wrong...he has read the tea leaves of the electorate from a onesided point of view...the best way to measure this is from the fulcrum...from the center outward...america is still a primarily conservative country...but let biased writers like the one who scratched this out get his skeet skeet on the sheet...his low ball hint is more apt...but he is correct in including this one point: the left leaning democrats will be punished if they try to move too quickly...bottom line is that the far leftwingnuts will not be getting their way for two reasons...one is that the democrat party has a great many "blue dog democrats" built into the ingredients of congress...the second is the global market...fluctuation and no confidence is going to shape shift for quite some time until some stability settles the economic nausea...and that all goes back to the value of housing purchases and the ability of owners to pay their debts...

...the congress also has a low approval rating...this needs to be reshaped...bush has accomplished his agenda and now it is time to let the virtue of patience be the guide...slow and steady as we trudge through the next four years...

...it is amazing that many of the "crescenting guerrillas" don't know what to make of our new us president...it is however not a time to let down our defenses...we must continue for the next couple of months to hammer away in waziristan...it is a good time to gather some ground while these "clerics" are regrouping their "brainwashed sheep"...

here is the warning that the above biased scribbler neglected to remind his "dear readers"

the new democrats elected will balance out the congress and have been assigned seats in the house and the senate...they will be constant checks on the far left.

the new congress has a majority of democrats and minority of republicans...however a majority of the democrats are right leaning...meaning that they are fiscally conservative and believe in strong defense...so we have less republicans...and we all know where they stand on the issues...and most of the democrats are right leaning donkees...blue...one might say....so...please "dear readers" ...lets be realistic...the congress has made a direct shift to the right...the name is the same...but the democrat philosophy has shifted slightly or mightily to the right...sorry to throw the icewater down your back...but it is true...

...the balance of power will have fair friction enough to keep our federal government's instrument making harmonic brass music and not leftwing regressive flat stale soundless wind.

it is not a new new deal...just a new deal...

Logged

If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? m.of v. w.shaka speare

..in fact many of you would not understand why we do what we do...we have found that perhaps the opposite works with a nutrient flushed advantage of obfuscation... ask yourselves...why "blue" warrior...why not red warrior? still scratching your head??? it has been right under your nose this whole time and nobody got it... aye began on this board in what year...at what particular time??? remember?

Hey bw. I knew you'd be up to your normal self. This post sounds a lot like that coin toss thing- heads, tails, on its side. I got it then (which you gave me no credit for )and I think I got it now:

and I KNOW i am not the only one who's glad that there's no more "don't vote Obama" *&^% coming from bluewarrior..

now you know not to count on Mr. Bw going away any time soon right? I'm thinking we have some fresh new-old crackpot theories in store (but I've always believed there was some kind of method to his madness- call me naive; like he was purposely being nuts to hone our own theories and beliefs toward Obama in a, albeit misguided, sort of reverse psychology)!

To respond to your question- I'm just feeling a combo of an unrelenting sense of pride and disbelief. I had to download a whole bunch of articles to make sure this was real. I'm proud that I got a chance to work with the campaign. I feel honored but undeserving of the chance to see this happen in my lifetime.

But what your "independent" mind will not allow you to see is that no one really wants to engage in a Socratic method style of political debate. No one is scratching their head because no one really cares enough to. No one is thinking “gee, I wonder why bw is called blue instead of red. I’m just going to stay in bed all day until I figure this thing out.” I think because of that folks just skip over your posts and your points, when you make them, are largely missed. BTW,with all your posts shouldn’t you be the purple warrior?

no one gets partial credit unless they do the research...although you have some intuitive inclinations...you get some partial credit...but you were really injecting an assumption...and if no one cares about what aye write...why do they continue to read it???and by the way...aye caught you "thinking" and trying to figure out where aye was focused ...and aye have caught others "trying" to do some research...my real influence is not this tiny board...my influence is humble here...my real work is in a pet store on court st...aye am an indigo...and in the future perhaps some of you may discover more about us...we are the one's who are here with a mission...we are ushering a new era...and our mission is moving solidly...

aye think it is funny that with my being on this board for more than two years no one who thinks they are intelligent enough to challenge me have not asked me questions...they would rather get angry and name call or pretend to be offended...many people on the board aye have disagreed with aye have communicated with on a friendly basis...some are just simple or provincial...settlement people or complacency minded dolts...or old bitter balding middleaged bloody sphincter muscles...and some...the sad one's...have misguided inner prejudicial affectations.

...isn't it strange that some think aye am a republican??...wouldn't that be red warrior??? and indigo is closer to blue than purple...but cute response...

...but aye absolutely will chastise the stupidity of posters on this cite who think they will get anywhere without researching...and that is one of the ways practicing lawyers get beat...they also cannot picture themselves in the oppositions shoes or with the opposing viewpoint...that is the catechetical way...and that is the way to find answers or discover outcomes having asked the questions...having done the research...

...also...most lawyers can't break out of the triangle and do not approach subjects from alternative parameters...

...aye am an indigo who thoroughly saw the need for the bush cheney "wrangler politique"...and history will be very kind to them...they took the fight to the folks who needed to be taken to task...if aye may use the vernacular...that does not mean aye am a republican...it means the democrats had no plan...and had a reputation of weakness with regard to national defense...and clinton was near ineffectual with dealing with those using force against us...his weaknesses lead to george bush's strengths...

...aye am an indigo who assisted many other indigos in putting to political bed.."the clintons"...they are now finished forever...thank god...that was our primary agenda...mission accomplished.

...indigos are shaping the world from the middle outward...we other ones operate out of pet stores...churches...schools...government...think tanks and law offices... ...and more of us are gathering.

Logged

If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? m.of v. w.shaka speare

Democratic legislators ask state Supreme Court to void Prop. 8Opponents contend that a ban on gay marriage can only be done by a revision of the state Constitution involving the Legislature. The Prop. 8 campaign leader calls the effort 'a Hail Mary.'By Dan Morain November 11, 2008Reporting from Sacramento -- Forty-three Democratic legislators, including leaders of the California Senate and Assembly, filed a brief Monday urging the California Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and incoming President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg signed the friend of the court brief, filed with the state Supreme Court.

No Republican legislator signed the petition, though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, denounced the anti-gay marriage measure over the weekend.

With almost 11 million ballots tallied, Proposition 8 had 52.3% of the vote to 47.7%. Although many ballots remain to be counted, the 500,000-vote spread is viewed as insurmountable.

"The citizens of California rely on the Legislature and the courts to safeguard against unlawful discrimination by temporary, and often short-lived, majorities," the legislators said in the document, written by attorneys at the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

"This is a Hail Mary, no question about it," said Frank Schubert, manager of the Proposition 8 campaign.

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown's office would be obligated to defend the initiative. But Schubert said that if the high court agrees to hear the case, backers of the initiative would seek to intervene to defend it.

In their brief, lawmakers described the 500,000-vote margin as a "bare majority," and said it was "compromising the enduring constitutional promise of equal protection under the law."

"Proposition 8 seeks to effect a monumental revision of this foundational principle and constitutional structure by allowing a bare majority of voters to eliminate a fundamental right of a constitutionally protected minority group," the brief says.

"If Proposition 8 takes effect, this court will no longer be the final arbiter of the rights of minorities," it continues.

The action contends that the ban, created by the initiative that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, cannot be done by a mere constitutional amendment. Rather, it must be done by a revision of the entire Constitution and the Legislature would have to be involved.

As advocates of same-sex marriage turn to courts, protests, and perhaps a future ballot measure in an attempt to overturn Proposition 8, Schubert declared that the vote is "as over as Barack Obama's election."

The chief strategist for Proposition 8 said the best way to overturn the measure would be to place an initiative on the ballot that would repeal it. But he doubts that will happen.

"Politically, this was the best chance they could have possibly had," Schubert said of the measure's opponents.

The all-important ballot title written by Brown cast the measure as one that would revoke a right, a move that had been viewed as particularly helpful to opponents.

One of the closing ads featured Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Popular though she is, Schubert said, it was odd that Proposition 8 foes would select Feinstein to lecture voters, including minorities, about discrimination.